Oklahoma Senators Approve Bill To Protect Second Amendment Rights Of Medical Marijuana Patients

Lawmakers in Oklahoma this week advanced a bill aimed at protecting gun rights of state-registered medical marijuana patients, although federal law still bars cannabis users from owning firearms regardless of their patient status.

The Senate Committee on Public Safety unanimously passed the measure, SB 39, from Sen. Julie Daniels (R), on Wednesday with a vote of 6-0. If it’s enacted, the legislation would specify that applicants for state-issued handgun licenses would not be disqualified merely for being a medical marijuana patient.

It states that “an applicant shall not be considered ineligible solely on the basis of being a lawful holder of a medical marijuana patient license” and also makes a medical marijuana exception around disqualifications for “any violation relating to illegal drug use or possession.”

Yet another provision in the bill says that “nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation to deny an otherwise qualified applicant from obtaining a handgun license pursuant to the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act solely on the basis of the applicant being a lawful holder of a medical marijuana patient license.”

Ahead of the vote at Wednesday’s hearing, Daniels pointed out that courts across the nation are increasingly pushing back against the notion that merely using marijuana should deny them their Second Amendment rights.

“In recent years, the courts have all come down on the side that someone should not be denied a firearm license or be prosecuted for possession of a firearm solely because they use marijuana,” she told colleagues. “And in Oklahoma, of course, we have a medical marijuana program. So the point of this bill is to make clear that solely because you have a medical marijuana patient card does not mean that you should be automatically denied a firearm license.”

Carrying or using a shotgun, rifle or pistol while under the influence of marijuana—even if it was “obtained pursuant to a valid medical marijuana patient license”—would remain illegal if the drug affects someone “to a degree that would result in abnormal behavior,” the bill says.

The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigations, for its part, said in a statement on Wednesday that it will abide by the new rules, if adopted.

“We respect the right of Oklahomans to legally have firearms,” the agency said, according to local ABC affiliate KOCO News 5, which first reported the committee’s passage of the bill. “We will work with new laws passed by the legislature.”

As for the federal law against gun ownership by marijuana users, a federal appeals court panel earlier this month dismissed a three-year prison sentence against a person convicted for possession of a firearm while being an active user of marijuana, ruling that the federal government’s prohibition on gun ownership by drug users is justified only in certain circumstances—not always.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said in the opinion that while not all disarmament of drug users violates the Second Amendment, it nevertheless sometimes can.

“Nothing in our tradition allows disarmament simply because [the defendant] belongs to a category of people, drug users, that Congress has categorically deemed dangerous,” the ruling says.

In recent years, the federal criminal statue known as 922(g)(3)—which prevents anyone who is an “unlawful user” of an illegal drug from buying or possessing firearms—has come under fire in a number of federal courts.

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

In a separate ruling earlier this year, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the firearms ban was unconstitutional as applied in the case of one defendant, Patrick Daniels. That ruling came on the heels of a string of other judicial decisions casting doubt on the legality of the ban.

The situation has caused confusion among medical marijuana patients, state lawmakers and advocacy groups, among others. The National Rifle Association’s (NRA) lobbying arm said recently that the court rulings on the cannabis and guns issue have “led to a confusing regulatory landscape” that have impacted Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

“Marijuana use is no longer limited to the domain of indigenous religious customs or youth-oriented counterculture and now includes a wide variety of people who use it for medicinal or recreational reasons,” said the advocacy group, which does not have an official stance on cannabis policy generally. “Many of these individuals are otherwise law-abiding and productive members of their communities and want to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.”

Separately, a federal judge in El Paso recently ruled that the government’s ongoing ban on gun ownership by habitual marijuana users is unconstitutional in the case of a defendant who earlier pleaded guilty to the criminal charge. The court allowed the man to withdraw the plea and ordered that the indictment against him be dismissed.

Another panel of judges, on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, heard oral arguments in November in the government’s appeal of a district court ruling that deemed the gun ban unconstitutional.

Much of the panel’s discussion at oral argument in that case surrounded whether the underlying dispute was a facial challenge to the gun ban or an as-applied challenge. And, as in other cases, judges zeroed in on whether or not that defendant was actually under the influence of marijuana while in possession of a firearm.

In a separate federal court case, Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers recently made arguments that the ongoing firearm restriction for cannabis users is “analogous to laws disarming the intoxicated” and other historical laws “disarming many disparate groups that the government believed presented a danger with firearms.”

That brief was the latest response to a case filed by a Pennsylvania prosecutor who’s suing the federal government over its ban on gun ownership by cannabis users. It came two weeks after lawyers for the official, Warren County District Attorney Robert Greene, asked the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to allow the matter to proceed to trial.

In a number of the ongoing cases, DOJ has argued that the prohibition on gun ownership by marijuana users is also supported by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, U.S. v. Rahimi, that upheld the government’s ability to limit the Second Amendment rights of people with domestic violence restraining orders.

DOJ has made such arguments, for example, in favor of the firearms ban in a case in a case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In that matter, a group of Florida medical cannabis patients contends that their Second Amendment rights are being violated because they cannot lawfully buy firearms so long as they are using cannabis as medicine, despite acting in compliance with state law.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) under President Joe Biden consistently argued that medical marijuana patients who possess firearms “endanger public safety,” “pose a greater risk of suicide” and are more likely to commit crimes “to fund their drug habit.”

It remains unclear how the Trump administration will approach the cases. At a NRA conference in 2023, Trump suggested there might be a link between the use of “genetically engineered” marijuana and mass shootings. He listed a number of controversial and unproven factors that he said at the time he would direct the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to investigate as possibly causing the ongoing scourge of mass shooting afflicting the country.

“We have to look at whether common psychiatric drugs, as well as genetically engineered cannabis and other narcotics, are causing psychotic breaks” that lead to gun violence, he said.

DOJ has claimed in multiple federal cases over the past several years that the statute banning cannabis consumers from owning or possessing guns is constitutional because it’s consistent with the nation’s history of disarming “dangerous” individuals.

In 2023, for example, the Justice Department told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that historical precedent “comfortably” supports the restriction. Cannabis consumers with guns pose a unique danger to society, the Biden administration claimed, in part because they’re “unlikely” to store their weapon properly.

Last year, Biden’s son Hunter was convicted by a federal jury of violating statute by buying and possessing a gun while an active user of crack cocaine. Two Republican congressmen challenged the basis of that conviction, with one pointing out that there are “millions of marijuana users” who own guns but should not be prosecuted.

Meanwhile, some states have passed their own laws either further restricting or attempting to preserve gun rights as they relate to marijuana. Recently, for example, a Pennsylvania lawmaker introduced a bill meant to remove state barriers to medical marijuana patients carrying firearms.

Colorado activists also attempted to qualify an initiative for November’s ballot that would have protected the Second Amendment rights of marijuana consumers in that state, but the campaign’s signature-gathering drive ultimately fell short.

As 2024 drew to a close, the ATF issued a warning to Kentucky residents that, if they choose to participate in the state’s medical marijuana program that’s set to launch imminently, they will be prohibited from buying or possessing firearms under federal law.

The official said that while people who already own firearms aren’t “expected to” turn them over if they become state-legal cannabis patients, those who “wish to follow federal law and not be in violation of it” must “make the decision to divest themselves of those firearms.”

Since then, bipartisan state lawmakers have introduced legislation that would urge Kentucky’s representatives in Congress to amend federal law to clarify that users of medical marijuana may legally possess firearms.

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) said last month that he supports the legislature’s effort to urge the state’s congressional delegation to call for federal reforms to protect the Second Amendment rights of medical marijuana patients, but the governor added that he’d like to see even more sweeping change on the federal level.

“I think the right way to deal with that is not just to focus on that issue, but to change the schedule of marijuana,” Beshear said at a press conference. “What we need to change is the overall marijuana policy by the federal government.”

Trump’s Pick For Top Health Lawyer Thinks Marijuana Is A ‘Dangerous’ And ‘Genetically Engineered Hard Drug’